virginia dale - incorporating bioenergy into sustainable landscape design

Incorporating Bioenergy into

Sustainable Landscape

Designs

Virginia H. Dale ([email protected])

Keith L. Kline ([email protected])

Esther Parish ([email protected])

Center for BioEnergy Sustainability

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Oak Ridge, Tennessee

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/cbes/

March 15, 2016

Workshop on “Landscape management and

design for food, bioenergy and the bioeconomy:

methodology and governance aspects

Gothenburg, Sweden

mailto:[email protected]




2 Managed by UT-Battelle for the U.S. Department of Energy

Sustainability brings together disparate perspectives


Overall Approach

*


Categories of indicators of progress toward sustainability

Greenhouse gas emissions

Soil quality

Water quality

and quantity Air quality

Biological

diversity

Productivity

McBride et al. (2011) Ecological

Indicators 11:1277-1289.

Social well being

External

trade

Energy

security

Profitability

Resource

conservation

Social

acceptability

Dale et al. (2013) Ecological

Indicators 26:87-102.

Metrics & interpretations are context specific

Efroymson et al. (2013) Environmental Management 51:291-306.

Environmental Socioeconomic

Sustainability Should Apply to

Feedstock production

Feedstock

logistics Conversion

Biofuel distribution

End use

Feedstock type

Land conditions

Management

Processing

Storage

Fuel type

Transport

Storage

Engine type and efficiency

Blend conditions

Conversion process

Transport

Co-products

Harvesting and collection

• Entire supply chain

• Diverse feedstocks

• All conversion pathways

(Example shown is biofuel, but concepts are applicable to bioenergy as well)

Dale et al. (2013) Environmental Management 51: 279-290.

Feedstock type

Land conditions

Management

Processing

Harvesting and collection

Storage

Transport

Fuel type

Conversion process

Co-products

Storage

Transport

Blend conditions

Engine type and efficiency

Biofuel Supply Chain in View of Indicators Feedstock production

Feedstock logistics

Conversion to biofuel

Biofuel logistics

Biofuel end uses

Environmental

Categories without major effects

Profitability

Social well being

External trade

Energy security

Resource conservation

Social acceptability

Socioeconomic Soil quality

Water

Greenhouse gases

Biodiversity

Air quality

Productivity


Integrating Bioenergy via Landscape Design Improves Resource Management

Dale et al. (2016). Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 56:1158-1171.


Landscape Design

8 Dale et al. (2016)

Parish et al. (2012) Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 6:58–72.

Parish et al. (2016) Ecosphere 7(2):e01206.

10.1002/ecs2.1206.

Assessed Multiple Effects of Bioenergy Choices An optimization model identified “ideal” sustainability conditions for using switchgrass for bioenergy in east Tennessee

Spatial optimization model

• Identifies where to locate plantings of bioenergy crops given feedstock needs for Vonore refinery

• Considering – Farm profit

– Water quality constraints


Lacking markets, woody debris after timber harvests is left to decay; often burns; and can contribute to

risk, frequency and intensity of wildfires

Key Research Questions • How does SE US pellet production for export to EU (now

through 2030) differ from business-as-usual case of no pellet production? Under what conditions does the pellet industry complement

or compete with pulpwood use? Will pellet industry alter amount of land staying in forests?

• Are there significant changes to key indicators? Biodiversity Land-use changes Greenhouse gas emissions

• Does pellet industry provide costs or benefits? Jobs Water quality improvement Preserving land as forest Other benefits?


Factors to consider: woody biomass for pellets is at end of value chain

Biomass

Landowner

decisions –

if/when

•Planting

•Site prep/Fertilize

•Thinning

•Sales

External/logger

decisions

•What/how to cut

(may be certified)

• Markets

(determined by

price)

Pulp-

wood

Round

wood

export

None of

above,

chips

Sawmill

Paper mill

Residues

Market options

Saw

timber

Landscape,

land-use

history,

ownership

Feedstock

for pellet

mill

Other uses: •Energy for plant

•Particle board

•Fiberboard


ORNL analysis uses Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) data collected by USDA

Long-term survey of the forests in the US provides information on status and trends in

• Forest area and location

• Species, size, and health of trees

• Total tree growth, mortality, and removals by harvest

• Wood production and utilization rates by various products

• Forest land ownership

http://www.fia.fs.fed.us/tools-data/






Source: FIA RPA 2012; Timberland: forestland

capable of >20cft/acre-year of industrial wood

Prior analysis by USDA shows that most US timberland is in SE, under private, non-corporate ownership

Effects on forests of wood-based pellet production in fuelsheds of the SE US

Increased wood pellet production from two major fuelsheds in the SE US did not affect

– Carbon in – Litter and soil – Other nonharvestable material – Harvestable material

– Above-ground biomass – Forest area – Timberland area – Large tree class stand area – Standing dead


Consistent size distribution reflects healthy stand

0

1

2

3

4

2004 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Mill

ion

hec

tare

s

Savannah fuelshed stand size

Large Medium Small

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Mill

ion

hec

tare

s Chesapeake fuelshed stand size

Large Medium Small

Major stand diameter categories

Category

Hard-

wood

Soft-

wood Stocking

Large >11" >9"

>50% in medium

or large trees

Medium 5-11" 5-9"

>50% in medium

or large trees &

more medium

than large trees

Small <5" <5"

At least 50% small

diameter trees

Next steps

Evaluate projections for future pellet exports using

Bob Abt’s economic model

Continue to develop and test tools for assessment of

progress toward bioenergy sustainability

Focus on particularly challenging indicators

Biodiversity

Reference case for carbon accounting

Water quality

Case studies of evaluating progress toward

sustainability

Pellet production in SE US – survey of private landowners (building on

National Woodland Owner Survey)

Cellulosic crops in midwestern US (project led by Antares Group Inc.) http://energy.gov/eere/articles/energy-department-announces-9-million-

http://energy.gov/eere/articles/energy-department-announces-9-million-













Next step: Tool to Visualize Progress toward Sustainability

• Objective: Develop and test visualization tool (starting with a demonstration)

– Displays information about progress being made toward bioenergy sustainability

• In a particular context as defined by the user.

• As characterized by a suite of environmental, social and economic indicators

– Enhances understanding of tradeoffs and communicates relative importance of different components

• Audience: Diversity of stakeholders: individuals, groups, businesses, organizations

• Identify relevant properties of bioenergy sustainability indicators for aggregation

– How can information from multiple distributions for indicators be aggregated in a way that reduces complexity and maintains the most information?

– Use statistical and probabilistic approaches and properties of specific aggregation functions

– Quantifying uncertainty using the geometric mean as the aggregation function has yielded positive results

• Develop “dashboard” = collection of linked components that can affect each other

– Aggregate correctly

– Provide clear interpretation of results

– Engage user in exploring alternatives

• Process – Design a flexible platform via several case studies

•Better management of renewable resources –Reducing wastes and inefficiencies

–Existing infrastructure, know-how and technologies

–Retaining land in agriculture or forest

• Improve environmental conditions –Soils & water

–Biodiversity

–Carbon and GHG

•Enhance food & energy security –Conserving fossil energy resources

–Reducing risk of catastrophes

• Increase rates and stability of employment

Opportunities Bioenergy Offers to

more Sustainable Systems

Dale and Kline (in review)

•Public perception –Unmet expectations –Uncertainty about future demand &

prices

•Economics ─Unstable policy ─Up-front costs & risks of new energy

systems ─Uneven playing field

─ Subsidies ─ Lack of Infrastructure for new systems ─ Easy access to inexpensive fossil fuels

•Sustainability concerns –Food security –Biodiversity –Ambitious requirements

Barriers to more Sustainable Systems


Paths Bioenergy Provides to more

Sustainable Systems


• Use wastes and residues

• Be context specific

– Build on existing infrastructure and knowhow

– Communicate costs and benefits

• Promote better management

– Integrated agriculture

– Landscape design



Thank you!

This research is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Bio-Energy Technologies Office and performed at Oak Ridge National

Laboratory (ORNL). Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by

the UT-Battelle, LLC, for DOE under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725.


References • Dale VH and Kline KL. In review. Opportunities, barriers, and paths forward for sustainable use of

bioenergy. Ecology and Society.

• Dale VH, KL Kline, D Perla, A Lucier. 2013. Communicating about bioenergy sustainability.

Environmental Management 51(2): 279-290. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-012-0014-4.

• Dale VH, RA Efroymson, KL Kline, MH Langholtz, PN Leiby, GA Oladosu, MR Davis, ME Downing, MR

Hilliard. 2013. Indicators for assessing socioeconomic sustainability of bioenergy systems: A short list of

practical measures. Ecological Indicators 26: 87-102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014

• Dale VH, Kline KL, Marland G, Miner RA. 2015. Ecological objectives can be achieved with wood-

derived bioenergy. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 13(6):297-299.

• Dale VH, KL Kline, MA Buford, TA Volk, CT Smith, I Stupak. 2016. Incorporating bioenergy into

sustainable landscape designs. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 56:1158-1171.

http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S1364032115014215

• Efroymson, RA, VH Dale, KL Kline, AC McBride, JM Bielicki, RL Smith, ES Parish, PE Schweizer, DM

Shaw. 2013. Environmental indicators of biofuel sustainability: What about context? Environmental

Management 51(2): 291-306. DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9907-5

• McBride, A, VH Dale, L Baskaran, M Downing, L Eaton, RA Efroymson, C Garten, KL Kline, H Jager, P

Mulholland, E Parish, P Schweizer, and J Storey. 2011. Indicators to support environmental

sustainability of bioenergy systems. Ecological Indicators 11(5) 1277-1289.

• Parish, ES, M Hilliard, LM Baskaran, VH Dale, NA Griffiths, PJ Mulholland, A Sorokine, NA Thomas, ME

Downing, R Middleton. 2012. Multimetric spatial optimization of switchgrass plantings across a

watershed. Biofuels, Bioprod. Bioref. 6(1):58-72. DOI: 10.1002/bbb.342

• Parish ES, KL Kline, VH Dale, RA Efroymson, AC McBride, TL Johnson, MR Hilliard, JM Bielicki. 2013.

A multi-scale comparison of environmental effects from gasoline and ethanol production.

Environmental Management 51(2): 307-338. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-012-9983-6

• Parish ES, VH Dale, BC English, SW Jackson, DD Tyler. 2016. Assessing multimetric aspects of

sustainability: Application to a bioenergy crop production system in East Tennessee. Ecosphere

7(2):e01206. 10.1002/ecs2.1206.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.10.014

